The Fatal Paradox

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 07:58 am
@fast,
fast;165284 wrote:
He may.

.................



You mean, "he might". Smile
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 08:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165286 wrote:
You mean, "he might". Smile
Lol. I knew that distinction wouldn't escape you.

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 08:41 am
@fast,
fast;165293 wrote:
Lol. I knew that distinction wouldn't escape you.

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Now that's exactly the problem with socialism (see what is happening in Greece now) too damn many benefits, with no money coming in.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 08:56 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165295 wrote:
Now that's exactly the problem with socialism (see what is happening in Greece now) too damn many benefits, with no money coming in.
benefits in Greece ...please be honest and admit its a capitalist inspired downfall nothing to do with benefits.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:01 am
@xris,
xris;165303 wrote:
benefits in Greece ...please be honest and admit its a capitalist inspired downfall nothing to do with benefits.


Damn! I clean forgot about that! Thank you for reminding me how those capitalists forced Greeks to retire at 90% of their salary at the ripe old age of 50. And how, when they were working, they were force to take vacations at extra salary, so that not only did they have paid vacations, but they were paid extra to take vacations! Greedy old capitalists!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:33 am
@fast,
fast;165274 wrote:
Things are not true or false. Propositions are true or false. Though I think you know this, I don't think Mark Noble does.


Yes, you are right. A thing, like my chair, can't be true. What the hell would that mean? Man, I just drown in absurdities with the rest of them sometimes.
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:16 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;165323 wrote:
Yes, you are right. A thing, like my chair, can't be true. What the hell would that mean?
That it's sturdy and longlasting. You know, well built, no plastic parts ... fit for a real man.

I'm kidding!
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:46 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;165323 wrote:
Yes, you are right. A thing, like my chair, can't be true. What the hell would that mean? Man, I just drown in absurdities with the rest of them sometimes.


Careful with your "cannot". What do you mean it cannot? What kind of possibility are you talking about? I hope it's not logical. But if it isn't, then what is it?

I never write things like "My car cannot be true.". Since that is inconsistent with "My car is true." is a meaningless sentence. So, instead I write "the sentence "My car is true." is not meaningful. Then I completely avoid getting myself into the whole business of impossibilities, even if it is just another way of stating the same thing. Perhaps some sort of meaningful impossibility is meant. I speculated about that in the past. I know that it is common to speak like you do and Ken too for that matter.

Btw, Z. How is your study of logic coming along?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 12:41 pm
@kennethamy,
Emil wrote:
Careful with your "cannot". What do you mean it cannot? What kind of possibility are you talking about? I hope it's not logical. But if it isn't, then what is it?


I don't believe that chairs can have the property of being true. What would it mean to say that a chair is true?

That is all I meant.

Quote:
I never write things like "My car cannot be true.". Since that is inconsistent with "My car is true." is a meaningless sentence.


How? They both seem like meaningless sentences.

Quote:
Btw, Z. How is your study of logic coming along?


Not too well, as you can no doubt tell.
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 01:17 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;165378 wrote:
I don't believe that chairs can have the property of being true. What would it mean to say that a chair is true?

That is all I meant.


That doesn't really help. What do you mean "cannot"?

Quote:
How? They both seem like meaningless sentences.
I think you misunderstood.

1. My car cannot be true.
2. "My car is true." is a meaningless sentence.

The above two sentences are inconsistent yet you seem to be saying both of them. That's pretty common. At least they are inconsistent if "cannot" expresses logical impossibility. If something else is meant, then I don't know if they are inconsistent.

I suspect all you meant was that:

3. It is meaningless to say that a car has the property of trueness.

Quote:
Not too well, as you can no doubt tell.
One could reasonable deduce that you aren't too interested in doing serious thinking or that you are acting irrationally by not studying logic. I don't know which.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 01:22 pm
@kennethamy,
Emil wrote:
I suspect all you meant was that:

3. It is meaningless to say that a car has the property of trueness.


It is wise of you to suspect that, since that is what I meant here:

Quote:
I don't believe that chairs can have the property of being true. What would it mean to say that a chair is true?

That is all I meant.


Perhaps the language wasn't precise enough for you to understand, but I believe it was. Remember that principle of charity.

Quote:
One could reasonable deduce that you aren't too interested in doing serious thinking or that you are acting irrationally by not studying logic. I don't know which.


Probably both.
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 01:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;165403 wrote:
It is wise of you to suspect that, since that is what I meant here:


Ok. Clever me then!

Quote:
Perhaps the language wasn't precise enough for you to understand, but I believe it was. Remember that principle of charity.
Careful with that principle. If you apply it too much any piece of hogwash will contain countless valid arguments and there are no fallacies in reasoning to be found even in the most terrible arguments!

Anyway, I agree with (3). (3) is a an, AFAIK, unambiguous way to state what one means here. The other sentence, not so much. Hence why I don't use them and say "Careful" (with that axe, Eugene!) when people write them. Wink
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 03:53 pm
@Emil,
Emil;165408 wrote:
Ok. Clever me then!

Careful with that principle. If you apply it too much any piece of hogwash will contain countless valid arguments and there are no fallacies in reasoning to be found even in the most terrible arguments!

Anyway, I agree with (3). (3) is a an, AFAIK, unambiguous way to state what one means here. The other sentence, not so much. Hence why I don't use them and say "Careful" (with that axe, Eugene!) when people write them. Wink


That's fair. I think it is not ambiguous to me because I know less than you in regards to the intricities in language. I believe it has much to do with your training in logic, specifically propositional and modal (correct me if I'm wrong). Certain words I will not "see" as you do.

Thankfully you are here to make sure I am cautious (hence the repeated "careful"'s).
 
Extrain
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:51 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;163200 wrote:
A posteriori is knowledge gain by experience, but it does not say which agent.


But one would not have a posteriori knowledge that fatalism were true in some possible world unless he, himself, were IN that possible world, and not in the actual world. So your knowledge that fatalism is true in some other world can only be known a priori, because it is simply metaphysically impossible for YOU to know a posteriori that fatalism is a posteriori knowable for some other person in some other world of which you are not a part.

TuringEquivalent;163200 wrote:
The entire human race will probable never ever know if there are multiple universes, but it is not logically impossible that some life form can know.


It's not logically impossible that some life forms can know that telephones can fly in some possible worlds, either. But so what?

TuringEquivalent;163200 wrote:
Are you joking? Since when is a posteriori knowledge dependent on a single observer, me? I am flattered by the way.


Huh? Since when are we not talking about someone's knowledge relativized to a possible world when we are talking about "someone's knowing that P"? If John knows that fatalism is true, then he either knows this a posteriori or a priori. If he knows fatalism is true a posteriori, then he knows this by personal experience. And if he knows fatalism is true by experience, then he knows fatalism is true in his actual world.

On the other hand, if John knows fatalism is true in some other world, then he can only know this a priori, not a posteriori, simply because he is not part of that other world. No one can have a posteriori knowledge about other possible worlds: it is metaphysically impossible.
TuringEquivalent;163200 wrote:
Not to mention the endless time you misread me by saying i claim fatalism to be true in the actual world.

You are simply not thinking through what you are saying. If fatalism is a posteriori known to be true in the actual world, then it is known to be true in the actual world of which that person is a part. If someone knows fatalism is true for some possible world, but not the actual world, then he knows fatalism is true for that world of which he is not a part--a priori.

So fatalism cannot be not known to be true a posteriori for other possible worlds by us in the actual world, since we can only know fatalism is true in other possible worlds a priori.
TuringEquivalent;163200 wrote:
Your ridiculous claim that that fatalism is metaphysically necessary is also something you ignore knowing that i am right. Too shy?


I already said I don't care about this point since you already admitted you don't know fatalism is true in the actual world. Further, I also said I am not a realist about possible worlds like David Lewis. So I find further discussion of this topic useless.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 05:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165305 wrote:
Damn! I clean forgot about that! Thank you for reminding me how those capitalists forced Greeks to retire at 90% of their salary at the ripe old age of 50. And how, when they were working, they were force to take vacations at extra salary, so that not only did they have paid vacations, but they were paid extra to take vacations! Greedy old capitalists!
Exaggerations to make a narrow view of socialism appear valid. They dont retire at 50, its 65 with the average being 61. They have one of the lowest pensions in the EU and that statistic could apply to other states that have not experienced this economic melt down. What has caused this world economic problem is bankers greed and capitalists inability to control them...
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:37 pm
@xris,
Hi All,
I unsubscribed to this thread, and thusly missed all the subsequent banter about me.
I don't have the correct terminology, I admit - So allow me to explain... When I say "I'm not sure if I Know for sure", I mean What I do know (And I truly believe I know what I know) is open to fallibility (I don't believe any of what I know is incorrect) but I acknowledge (not believe) I may be wrong.

When I say "fate" is unavoidable, I mean it is predestined, already written in stone (Q is foreknown) This is what I believe. Q is not foreknown to me, I might add. I also believe Q to be variable, but not on a specific timeline. (will explain, if asked to).

Anyway - What's Posteriori? Is it "Coming after, later" as in "posterior" only latinised?

Thank you, and journey well.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:33 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;167881 wrote:
Hi All,

When I say "fate" is unavoidable,


Mark...


Of course fate is unavoidable. If it could be avoided it would not be called "fate". (Of course bachelors are unmarried men. If they were not, they would not be called, "bachelors").
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 03:17 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;167881 wrote:
Hi All,
I unsubscribed to this thread, and thusly missed all the subsequent banter about me.
I don't have the correct terminology, I admit - So allow me to explain... When I say "I'm not sure if I Know for sure", I mean What I do know (And I truly believe I know what I know) is open to fallibility (I don't believe any of what I know is incorrect) but I acknowledge (not believe) I may be wrong.

When I say "fate" is unavoidable, I mean it is predestined, already written in stone (Q is foreknown) This is what I believe. Q is not foreknown to me, I might add. I also believe Q to be variable, but not on a specific timeline. (will explain, if asked to).

Anyway - What's Posteriori? Is it "Coming after, later" as in "posterior" only latinised?

Thank you, and journey well.

Mark...


A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/03/2021 at 08:10:03